EVs have less air and noise pollution, emit less GHGemissions and have lower user costs per km compared to ICEVs, and can also leadto an increase in the share of renewable energy in a country/jurisdiction 9. EVs are also more efficient than ICEVs because of their electricpowertrain system. In that sense, electrification of transportation sector may decrease the primary energy consumption becauseof the increase in the well-to-wheel efficiency of an electric powertrainsystem compared to an ICE system 6.Electrifyingthe transportation sector leads to lowerdemand for oil products. The electricity needed to fuel the alternative fuelvehicles may be generated from differentresources.
This means that electrifyingthe transportation sector reduces the dependencyon oil products and covers the need for oil products with otherresources. So as the primary energy needed for transportation sector can be supplied from different energy sources,energy supply security and flexibility will increase 6.Although there is a worldwideagreement on the need for decreasing the amount of CO2 emissionreduction, the development of low-emission technologies has several barriers. Themost important barrier is the higher cost of low-emission technologies comparedto conventional technologies.
Additional to higher cost, EVs also face theproblem of range anxiety for customers meaning the EV owners may not get thesame driving range they could have with an ICEV and need more time and charginginfrastructure compared to the time andrefueling infrastructure needed for ICEVs. This challenge is specificallyimportant for BEVs. It is generally accepted that the widespreaddeployment of electric vehicles needs fiscal incentives at least in the earlystages of adoption. These fiscal incentives and regulations may be provided in different forms such as purchasesubsidy, emission regulation, and R&Dfunds.
Countries/jurisdictions all over theworld have established programs to support the purchase of EVs and developmentof their charging/refueling infrastructure. But while we have observed anincrease in the adoption of EVs in recent years, there is still a need for carefullydesigned policies for promoting further deployment of EVs. These policiesshould be presented in different formssuch as financial incentives, support for technologicalprogress and incentives for charging/refueling infrastructure 10.Lower variablecost of EVS compared to ICEVs can’t overcome the challenge of their higherupfront cost 9.Allocating incentives for the purchase ofEVs tries to address the higher cost challenge. Developing sufficient chargingand refueling infrastructure is also aimed at addressing the anxiety rangechallenge. Other factors such as lack ofknowledge about new technologies may also contribute to slow deploymentof EVs. However, we are not focusing on these social factors in this work as they arefound to be of a lower degree of importance compared to technological issues 15.
Theimportant point in the analysis of thepolicies for BEVs, PHEVs, and FCVs isthat the effect of support policies for each of these technologies is notlimited to that certain technology and will also affect the deployment of othertechnologies. Harrison and Thiel 11 statethat maturity of FCVs may be prohibited if a strong policy for chargeableelectric vehicles is in place. In thiswork, we are reviewing subsidies for both infrastructure and vehicle deploymentfor countries/jurisdictions that have incentives for BEVs and PHEVs as well asFCVs. The incentives considered in this work for deployment of EVs arepurchase subsidies for BEVs, PHEVs, and FCVs.
Regarding the charging/refuelinginfrastructure, we are reviewing how local/national governments support andcontribute to the development of the charging/refueling infrastructure. Aqualitative analysis is then presented based on the review of the policies. Review of support policiesThere are a considerable number of countries which havesupport policies for deployment of EVs and PHEVs,but in this work, we are consideringcountries that have incentives and support policy for both BEVs/PHEVs and FCVs.
The countries/jurisdictions considered in this work are from three geographicalareas: East Asia, Europe, and North America. The tencountries/jurisdictions investigated in this work are as follows:· East Asia: Japan, Republicof Korea, China· Europe: Germany, France, theUK, Norway, Denmark, Sweden· North America: the state ofCaliforniaThe government of Japan provides support toearly adopters of FCVs including “Toyota Mirai” and, in the future, Honda FCVwith JPY13 million grant per car (approximately 45% the sale cost of the vehicle) 18.Based on the new subsidy scheme in Japan introduced in 2016, the government set a maximum subsidy of JPY 850,000for the purchase of BEVs. Based on thissupport policy, the purchase incentive for a Nissan Leaf with a 30 kWh battery amounts to JPY 330,000 19.The Japanesegovernment also provides subsidies for the construction of HRSs 18.Table1shows the support for the development of HRSs sponsored by Ministry of Economy,Trade and Industry for 2017 fiscal year 20.1 Exchangerate for Japanese Yen in December 6th, 2017 is 1 JPY ~ 0.01 USD